The Bible is Catholic -

[inJESUS]

Ignatius of Antioch

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (

Tertullian

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

Origen

“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

 

[guanophore]

According to the RCC required understanding, there is no such thing as by “Grace alone” through “Faith alone” in “Jesus alone” according to the “Bible alone”.

I believe you are correct on this point.

There does however, seem to be such a thing as “Keys alone”, which gives the “RCC alone” “all rights and powers of the Holy Spirit alone” to dispense with God’s grace.

I believe you are incorrect on this point. Jesus gave the Keys to Peter, but made it clear that Peter was to “confirm the brethren, and feed the sheep”. They were not given for him to use “alone” but for the people of God. Furthermore, this all occurred centuries before the Roman Rite developed, so it can’t have anything to do with Romaness. Thirdly, the rights and powers of the HS are not restricted to the visible church that Jesus founded, and although the Magesterium does work together with the HS to guide and teach the flock, God breathes where He will.

Whatever happened to the sovereign Will of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus spoke of when talking to Nicodemas?

That sovereign Spirit chooses to work through people, just as He showed Peter when He sent Him to Cornelius.

Have those claiming to possess “keys alone” now “dispensed” with the Holy Spirit’s previous “rights and powers alone” of being the sole dispenser alone of His sovereign Will?

No, and I am not sure why you are making up such accusations.

The RCC would have us believe that the Holy Spirit must now do His sovereign work only through their own RCC timing and will.

Please produce some official Roman documents that indicate as such.

They are not feeding the sheep the simple gospel of Jesus Christ anymore, as Peter was commanded. They are preaching themselves as being a necessary part of that saving gospel.

Peter never excluded himself from any of the gospel message, neither did any who have taught and preached the Apostolic message since. Why start now?

This makes them a lord, rather than the servant they falsely claim to be, of the gospel.

I do not understand the accusation you are trying to make here at all. Are you saying that, by preserving the message that was handed down to us by the Aposltes, we are not being servants of that Word?

The RCC does not follow what Paul preached in (2 Corinthians 4:5):

“For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.”

We all are given those same keys of understanding the Truth once the Holy Spirit permanently indwells us, after we are born from above. Only God does the dispensing of those keys, not any man or group of men. We have no business preaching ourselves as a necessary ingredient of the simple gospel. We are told to preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ alone.

No, I think not. If all were given the same keys of understanding we would all be in doctrinal unity. Perhaps the Spirit does gived us all the keys, but we just don’t operate them right? How is it that the indwelling HS is found in so many different denominations that conflict with each other? Is this the work of God, or of man?

God gave the keys to Peter, and only Peter. Only Peter has the charism of confirming the brethren, guarding and feeding the sheep. Others share in that charism by virtue of their unity with Peter.

No, we are not told to “preach alone”. We are told to be in unity, so that by that unity, all may know that we belong to Christ. It is our conduct with one another that bears witness to HIm, not just the words alone.

 

[teancum79]

Mercygate did a good kob of answering your post. I just want to add that, if you take some time to study real, neutral, authentic historic data, you will find that the Catholic tradition is THE tradition that goes back to Christ. All other Christian traditions are splits from that.
Naturally these others would not say that the Catholics have a monopoly.

Peace
James

Um NO!!!

Most Christians split from catholic tradition, but not all. LDS, 7th day and JW come to mind. As to the Catholic tradition dating back to Christ that is a Catholic belief. One that I have not seen shared by other religious or non religious historians.

 

[JRKH]

Um NO!!!
Most Christians split from catholic tradition, but not all. LDS, 7th day and JW come to mind. As to the Catholic tradition dating back to Christ that is a Catholic belief. One that I have not seen shared by other religious or non religious historians.

Hmmmm Let’s see…
Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest. Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Luther started the Protestant Reformation.
Prior to that you were basically either Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox Catholic. These two strands trace directly back to the time of the Apostles. Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

I suggest that you do some more reading and try to choose some non-biased sources. What you have been fed so far is blatently false.

Peace
James

 

[Lilyflower]

According to the RCC required understanding, there is no such thing as by “Grace alone” through “Faith alone” in “Jesus alone” according to the “Bible alone”.
There does however, seem to be such a thing as “Keys alone”, which gives the “RCC alone” “all rights and powers of the Holy Spirit alone” to dispense with God’s grace.

James clearly did not advocate ‘faith alone’ James 2:21

If there was such a concept of “bible alone” the Church would have been an a terrible position in the first three centuries. In fact the RCC teaches the very opposite of your criticism: Furthermore the tradition that you reject is preached by Paul 2 Thes2:15

Matthew 16:19, John 20:23. Indeed a bitter pill to swallow for non-Catholics.As if that was not bad enough, to add insult to injury James 5:14 - 15. This clearly refutes any claim to the contrary.

The RCC would have us believe that the Holy Spirit must now do His sovereign work only through their own RCC timing and will.

Christ founded a Community of Believers originally called ‘the Way’ and later called ‘the Church’. Christ Himself used the word ‘Church’ Mat 16:19. He does not refer to the many sects that would come 1500 or so years later but quite specifically the Church

As if this were not enough, He went further to say that He gave all authority on earth over faith and morals to His Church in the same scripture quote.'what you allow/forbid on earth shall be allowed/forbidden in Heaven, Christ’s words not the RCC

They are not feeding the sheep the simple gospel of Jesus Christ anymore, as Peter was commanded. They are preaching themselves as being a necessary part of that saving gospel.
This makes them a lord, rather than the servant they falsely claim to be, of the gospel.

My emphasis: your personal opinion and nothing more. Perhaps you ought attend a Mass and hear for yourself the 'simple Gospel preached. That is the primary role of every Priest: to preach the Gospel.

Jesus promised the Advocate to continue His teachings after His ascention. You are limiting the works of the Holy Spirit by denying Him His role in the evolution of Christendom which Christ Himself referred to in John 16:12 - 13

In fact the CC teaches 'we must depend not on ourselves but on God alone which is from Philip 4:13

The RCC does not follow what Paul preached in (2 Corinthians 4:5):

Equally many non-Catholics do not follow what Paul preached in 1Cor 11:29 and John 6:58-59 but prefering to put their own interpretation upon texts that were never intended to be so interpreted other than how they are written. Neither do they believe Paul in 1Cor 11 2 & 27-30 and much less so follow what he teaches.

By the same token one could add Luke 22:19; John 20:23 which is a serious bone of contention for non-Catholics who mock John [and the Church] on his very words, but it the case is stated here
in black and white for all the world to see.

As already discussed, most non-Catholics reject James 5:14 - 15 and so too 1Cor 11:29 and for good reason: it preaches against the very criticisms levelled above.

 

[teancum79]

Hmmmm Let’s see…
Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest. Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Luther started the Protestant Reformation.
Prior to that you were basically either Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox Catholic. These two strands trace directly back to the time of the Apostles. Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

I suggest that you do some more reading and try to choose some non-biased sources. What you have been fed so far is blatently false.

Peace
James

So help me out here. Was it Orthodox or Catholic’s that the JW’s broke away from?

Which of the two did the Idea of God and Christ being separate beings with bodies come from?

Which tradition supports the idea of modern day prophets?

I’m curious to learn what your unbiased source is?

 

[Linda_Marie]

Um NO!!!

Most Christians split from catholic tradition, but not all. LDS, 7th day and JW come to mind. As to the Catholic tradition dating back to Christ that is a Catholic belief. One that I have not seen shared by other religious or non religious historians.

LDS, 7th Dayers and JW’s are not Christian.

I have only heard of a few historians who dispute the fact that the Catholic Church is the first Christian Church. By and large, the vast majority confirm that until the Orthodox split off, there was only the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ on Peter.

IMO,the only ‘historians’ to say any different are those who have an ulterior motive wanting to prove that the Catholic Church is not the one founded by Christ, but that, somehow, theirs is. They think that just by saying that the Catholic Church is not the one founded by Christ, they can somehow change the truth. Repeat a lie often enough, and it is taken for the truth.

 

[teancum79]

LDS, 7th Dayers and JW’s are not Christian.

I have only heard of a few historians who dispute the fact that the Catholic Church is the first Christian Church. By and large, the vast majority confirm that until the Orthodox split off, there was only the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ on Peter.

IMO,the only ‘historians’ to say any different are those who have an ulterior motive wanting to prove that the Catholic Church is not the one founded by Christ, but that, somehow, theirs is. They think that just by saying that the Catholic Church is not the one founded by Christ, they can somehow change the truth. Repeat a lie often enough, and it is taken for the truth.

Lies like deChristianizing many who believe in Christ, but disagree with some traditions?

 

[guanophore]

Hmmmm Let’s see…
Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest. Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Luther started the Protestant Reformation.
Prior to that you were basically either Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox Catholic. These two strands trace directly back to the time of the Apostles. Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

I suggest that you do some more reading and try to choose some non-biased sources. What you have been fed so far is blatently false.

Peace
James

As long as we are on the topic of bias, James, let me address yours as well. There are several Rites that predated the Roman, since they spread East from Jerusalem or South into Africa before the Church was established in Rome. Therefore, there were many Catholic communities thriving before the Reformation that would not be called “Roman”.

These are all Catholic rites

Eastern Rites and Churches

ANTIOCHIAN

West Syriac

Maronite: Never seperated from Rome; Maronite Patriarch of Antioch

Syriac: Returned to Rome in 1781; Syriac Patriarch of Antioch

Malankarese: Returned to Rome in 1930

East Syriac

Chaldean: Returned to Rome in 1692; Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans

Syro-Malabarese: Returned to Rome in the 16th century

BYZANTINE

Armenian: either it’s own rite or and older version of the Byzantine rite; returned to Rome at the time of the Crusades; Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians

Byzantine

Albanian: Returned to Rome in 1628

Belarussion/Byelorussion: Returned to Rome in the 17th century

Bulgarian: Returned to Rome in 1861

Czech: Organized in 1996

Krizevci: Returned to Rome in 1611

Greek: Returned to Rome in 1829

Hungarian: Descendants of Ruthenians who returned to Rome in 1646

Italo-Albanian: Never separated from Rome

Melkite: Returned to Rome at the end of the Crusades; Melkite Greek Patriarch of Damascus

Romanian: Returned to Rome in 1697

Russian: Returned to from in 1905

Ruthenian: Returned to Rome in 1596 and 1646

Slovak:

Ukrainian: Returned to Rome at 1595; Patriarch or Metropolitan of Lviv

ALEXANDRIAN

Coptic: Returned to Rome in 1741: Patriarch of Alexandria

Ethiopian/Abyssinian: Returned to Rome in 1846

Granted, the Roman Rite is the largest, and most commonly known here in the West, but all of these communities are as proud of their cultural heritage as you are of your “Roman” ways.

 

[po18guy]

The RCC is due credit (or blame depending on your particular view) for assembling the Bible into its current state. That however does not make the writings their property. Those words where written by God’s prophets and others from days of old. They don’t belong to any one church.

You will have to show me the scripture that allows its dissemination to groups that do not follow Apostolic tradition. I must point out that Christ prayed, as documented in John 17:21-22 (excerpted) “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”

How does shattering the Sacred Body of Christ by forming thousands of denominations which do not agree, serve Christ? Remaining “one” is to follow the commandment of Christ. Discarding the traditions of Christ’s Apostles, encouraging private interpretation, and breaking into thousands of small churches which do not agree does in no way serve Christ. Private interpretation is condemned (see 2 Peter 1:19-20) , but then without it, remaining Christian would require obedience to the church Christ founded. And there, precisely, is the rub!

All sola scripturists love the concept of Christ. It is his reality that troubles them. This is a startling parallel to those mentioned in John 6. The difference is that the new “John 6:66 Christians” have discarded the traditions of Paul, contrary to Paul’s exhortation in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, preferring only his words - and even then only those words which were actually recorded.

Sola scriptura remains for those who will follow Christ anywhere, as long as He does not enter the Catholic church.

May unity in Christ be ours. It is worth fighting for.

 

[brkn1]

You will have to show me the scripture that allows its dissemination to groups that do not follow Apostolic tradition. I must point out that Christ prayed, as documented in John 17:21-22 (excerpted) “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”

How does shattering the Sacred Body of Christ by forming thousands of denominations which do not agree, serve Christ? Remaining “one” is to follow the commandment of Christ. Discarding the traditions of Christ’s Apostles, encouraging private interpretation, and breaking into thousands of small churches which do not agree does in no way serve Christ. Private interpretation is condemned (see 2 Peter 1:19-20) , but then without it, remaining Christian would require obedience to the church Christ founded. And there, precisely, is the rub!

All sola scripturists love the concept of Christ. It is his reality that troubles them. This is a startling parallel to those mentioned in John 6. The difference is that the new “John 6:66 Christians” have discarded the traditions of Paul, contrary to Paul’s exhortation in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, preferring only his words - and even then only those words which were actually recorded.

Sola scriptura remains for those who will follow Christ anywhere, as long as He does not enter the Catholic church.

May unity in Christ be ours. It is worth fighting for.

How do you explain the fact that Jesus addresses His Church as “the seven churches” in Revelation?
There seems to be differences between the churches in how they relate to their Head which is Jesus. They are presented as having to answer directly to Jesus alone for how they are serving or not serving the Lord. His commendations, threats,rebukes and exhortations are not always identical for each church. Seven represents the complete church under Jesus symbolically, but still the church is not presented as a single candlestick. That presentation should give pause to those who are so sure that there has to be a single earthly pastor (angel) with the final say for all of the different local churches.
Jesus is the Head and His Vicar on earth is the promised Comforter (Holy Spirit) sent Who lives in each “born from above” member of the royal priesthood that makes up the complete church. There are local pastors which Jesus calls “angels” in Revelation. These are His servant shepherds (pastors) that are responsible to preach to, exhort, and protect His sheep by feeding the true living bread, which is the Word of God as written and revealed by the Holy Spirit.

I do not reject Jesus’ gospel as you try to imply with the “John 6:66 Christians” remark. Is that how your church defines those who do not completely agree with the RCC understanding of Scripture? I would be interested if that is their official translation, if they have such a thing? If not, you might try to be more careful about slinging such translations around the way you did here.

 

[JRKH]

As long as we are on the topic of bias, James, let me address yours as well. There are several Rites that predated the Roman, since they spread East from Jerusalem or South into Africa before the Church was established in Rome. Therefore, there were many Catholic communities thriving before the Reformation that would not be called “Roman”.

These are all Catholic rites

Eastern Rites and Churches

ANTIOCHIAN

West Syriac

Maronite: Never seperated from Rome; Maronite Patriarch of Antioch

Syriac: Returned to Rome in 1781; Syriac Patriarch of Antioch

Malankarese: Returned to Rome in 1930

East Syriac

Chaldean: Returned to Rome in 1692; Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans

Syro-Malabarese: Returned to Rome in the 16th century

BYZANTINE

Armenian: either it’s own rite or and older version of the Byzantine rite; returned to Rome at the time of the Crusades; Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians

Byzantine

Albanian: Returned to Rome in 1628

Belarussion/Byelorussion: Returned to Rome in the 17th century

Bulgarian: Returned to Rome in 1861

Czech: Organized in 1996

Krizevci: Returned to Rome in 1611

Greek: Returned to Rome in 1829

Hungarian: Descendants of Ruthenians who returned to Rome in 1646

Italo-Albanian: Never separated from Rome

Melkite: Returned to Rome at the end of the Crusades; Melkite Greek Patriarch of Damascus

Romanian: Returned to Rome in 1697

Russian: Returned to from in 1905

Ruthenian: Returned to Rome in 1596 and 1646

Slovak:

Ukrainian: Returned to Rome at 1595; Patriarch or Metropolitan of Lviv

ALEXANDRIAN

Coptic: Returned to Rome in 1741: Patriarch of Alexandria

Ethiopian/Abyssinian: Returned to Rome in 1846

Granted, the Roman Rite is the largest, and most commonly known here in the West, but all of these communities are as proud of their cultural heritage as you are of your “Roman” ways.

Thanks for that list. Quite exhaustive.
I will readily admit my “bias”, as it were. due to my RC background and education. I try to be careful in these discussions to use the term Catholic rather than Roman Catholic just for this reason.
I hope I have not insulted you by my ignorance of these other ancient rites.

 

[mercygate]

Um NO!!!

Most Christians split from catholic tradition, but not all. LDS, 7th day and JW come to mind. As to the Catholic tradition dating back to Christ that is a Catholic belief. One that I have not seen shared by other religious or non religious historians.

Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS, was not much involved in organized religion but grew up in the wake of the “Great Awakening” in an area that had been hit hard by the phenomenon. So although he was not directly attached to a Protestant group, he certainly derived his thinking from reading the Bible in a Protestant context.

Charles Taze Russell, founder of the JWs, was raised Presbyterian.

So these groups are splinters of the splits.

The theology of both groups shares much with the Arian and Nestorian heresies that prompted the doctrinal definitions of the first four ecumenical councils.

 

[JRKH]

So help me out here. Was it Orthodox or Catholic’s that the JW’s broke away from?

JW is a breakaway from the Roman Catholic Tradition. I say this because it arose from the “Bible Students movement”, which was a Protestant religious movement that was founded in 1871. Protestant is a schism from the Roman Church in Northern Europe in the 1500’s
Both JW’s and 7th Day Adventists trace their origions to the Millerite movement in the Mid 1800’s

Which of the two did the Idea of God and Christ being separate beings with bodies come from?

Actually this idea came from the Arian Heresies.
Arianism (4th Century)
**Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. **By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

Which tradition supports the idea of modern day prophets?

I’m not sure what you are asking here? Could you be more specific?

I’m curious to learn what your unbiased source is?

That would be sources, not source. As someone else already pointed out most historians agree with the antiquity of the Catholic Church and it’s rightful place as the fount of Christian teaching through the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

How do you explain the fact that Jesus addresses His Church as “the seven churches” in Revelation?
There seems to be differences between the churches in how they relate to their Head which is Jesus. They are presented as having to answer directly to Jesus alone for how they are serving or not serving the Lord. His commendations, threats,rebukes and exhortations are not always identical for each church. Seven represents the complete church under Jesus symbolically, but still the church is not presented as a single candlestick. That presentation should give pause to those who are so sure that there has to be a single earthly pastor (angel) with the final say for all of the different local churches.

The letters are addressed to the angels of the churches, which are the bishops. All the bishops have always been in union together with one another, just as the Apostles were. This unity is what defines the Body.

Each community, under it’s bishop, has problems peculiar to that community to address. Jesus is clear that, if these are not addressed, they will fall from grace.

Jesus is the Head and His Vicar on earth is the promised Comforter (Holy Spirit) sent Who lives in each “born from above” member of the royal priesthood that makes up the complete church. There are local pastors which Jesus calls “angels” in Revelation. These are His servant shepherds (pastors) that are responsible to preach to, exhort, and protect His sheep by feeding the true living bread, which is the Word of God as written and revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Well, at least we agree on this point. Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter, and to the Apostles the power to forgive and retain sins, and to bind and loose (make laws&rules). These are the duties of people, guided by the HS.

I do not reject Jesus’ gospel as you try to imply with the “John 6:66 Christians” remark. Is that how your church defines those who do not completely agree with the RCC understanding of Scripture? I would be interested if that is their official translation, if they have such a thing? If not, you might try to be more careful about slinging such translations around the way you did here.

Yes, this is our understanding. Those who do not take Jesus words literally walk away from Him, at least to this extent. We understand that the HS works still in those who have rejected the real presence, so that they are in some mysterious way connected to the Body (though improperly), but Jesus was very clear in this teaching, and the Church calls this the Bread of Life Discourse.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for that list. Quite exhaustive.
I will readily admit my “bias”, as it were. due to my RC background and education. I try to be careful in these discussions to use the term Catholic rather than Roman Catholic just for this reason.
I hope I have not insulted you by my ignorance of these other ancient rites.

Not at all! I just wish to serve by way of reminder to my Western brethren.

 

[po18guy]

How do you explain the fact that Jesus addresses His Church as “the seven churches” in Revelation?
I do not reject Jesus’ gospel as you try to imply with the “John 6:66 Christians” remark. Is that how your church defines those who do not completely agree with the RCC understanding of Scripture? I would be interested if that is their official translation, if they have such a thing? If not, you might try to be more careful about slinging such translations around the way you did here.

As I understand it, there were seven churches in seven cities established at the time John was alive. They were one in Spirit and truth, agreeing on doctrines and precepts. The letters of Paul are a good example of his exhortation to remain unified, as Christ Himself prayed. Scripture in no way suggests that the seven churches adopted individual versions of the truth, or that they were sufficient to serve the entire earth. Christians are called to remain one in truth, as there is but one Truth, Jesus Christ…

I do not accuse you of rejecting the Gospel. I say that, unless you are in the One unified church, you do not share in the True Presence, the celebration of the Eucharist. It is those who reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist that I equate to those who left him. They loved His words, hanging on every one. But at one point, His teaching became “hard” and they could no longer follow. The Apostles and the church since its founding have practiced the Eucharist. That is Christ’s reality, his Presence with us “until the end of the age”.

I am sorry if you were offended, but this fact should cause reflection on the part of the thoughtful Christian.

Christ’s peace.

 

[brkn1]

As I understand it, there were seven churches in seven cities established at the time John was alive. They were one in Spirit and truth, agreeing on doctrines and precepts. The letters of Paul are a good example of his exhortation to remain unified, as Christ Himself prayed. Scripture in no way suggests that the seven churches adopted individual versions of the truth, or that they were sufficient to serve the entire earth. Christians are called to remain one in truth, as there is but one Truth, Jesus Christ…

I do not accuse you of rejecting the Gospel. I say that, unless you are in the One unified church, you do not share in the True Presence, the celebration of the Eucharist. It is those who reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist that I equate to those who left him. They loved His words, hanging on every one. But at one point, His teaching became “hard” and they could no longer follow. The Apostles and the church since its founding have practiced the Eucharist. That is Christ’s reality, his Presence with us “until the end of the age”.

I am sorry if you were offended, but this fact should cause reflection on the part of the thoughtful Christian.

Christ’s peace.

I take no offense at your remark, since I know it could not apply to me even if you meant it to. I’m glad that you believe that it is Jesus, Who is the True Head of His Church.

The Real Presence is another topic, so I will leave it at that for now.

The title of this thread claims that “The Bible is Catholic”, to which the proper response might be: No, the Bible is the Word of God and the Author is God Himself. Many seem to overlook that fact.

 

[mercygate]

I take no offense at your remark, since I know it could not apply to me even if you meant it to. I’m glad that you believe that it is Jesus, Who is the True Head of His Church.

The Real Presence is another topic, so I will leave it at that for now.

The title of this thread claims that “The Bible is Catholic”, to which the proper response might be: No, the Bible is the Word of God and the Author is God Himself. Many seem to overlook that fact.

By no means does the Catholic Church overlook the divine authorship of the Sacred Scriptures. From the Catechism:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, **we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”**72 108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” **Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.**73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

 

[po18guy]

I take no offense at your remark, since I know it could not apply to me even if you meant it to. I’m glad that you believe that it is Jesus, Who is the True Head of His Church.

The Real Presence is another topic, so I will leave it at that for now.

The title of this thread claims that “The Bible is Catholic”, to which the proper response might be: No, the Bible is the Word of God and the Author is God Himself. Many seem to overlook that fact.

Even taking your side of the argument, the Lord revealed it to His church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth. Catholics believe that Jesus alone is the Word. He existed before creation. The Catholic church is Christ centered, whereas many churches are bible-centered.

History is history and early writings clearly show that shortly after the year 100, the church of Christ was known as the universal, or “catholic” church, since there was but One Church of Christ. Some of the earliest members of that church wrote the revealed truth down for posterity. They did not base their beliefs and practices on the bible, because it did not yet exist.

We are blessed and joyous to have Sacred Scripture, but Christianity was not founded on a bible and certainly relies on it, but is not 100% dependent upon it. To argue otherwise is to assert that early Christians did not have, and could not know the truth, because they had no bible.

Christ’s peace.